Scrutinising Current Legislation Latest Topicshttp://forums.ragreynolds.net/index.php?/forum/32-scrutinising-current-legislation/Scrutinising Current Legislation Latest TopicsenShould businesses have the right to refuse to serve alcohol to pregnant women? (Debating Round)http://forums.ragreynolds.net/index.php?/topic/469-should-businesses-have-the-right-to-refuse-to-serve-alcohol-to-pregnant-women-debating-round/
This is a formal debate on the question of should private businesses such as pubs and supermarkets have the right to refuse to serve alcohol to pregnant women and should they also be encouraged to do so?

Is refusing to serve them discrimination?

Cast your votes before posting and then proceed to debate. In four weeks time this topic will lock, when that happens, we'll have another round where we vote again and see how this debate thread was successful or unsuccessful for each side of the argument.

___________________________

I came up with this debate because of new findings on the media that there isn't any conclusive evidence that moderate drinking is harmful for the baby. That doesn't mean it won't harm the baby either.

_____________________

I shall be posting my views for the rights of businesses having the right to refuse as a fundamental right for them. I shall be posting that later on this day.

I do believe is a question of freedom of businesses vs consumer rights.

Let the debating begin.

]]>469Tue, 12 Sep 2017 17:11:32 +0000Criminalising Child Sex Dolls (Informal Debate)http://forums.ragreynolds.net/index.php?/topic/389-criminalising-child-sex-dolls-informal-debate/
There has been a debate over non-offending pedophiles being allowed to own a sex doll that represents a young child.

Is it wrong to the point that it should be illegal?

Would allowing pedophiles using that doll enable their desires and eventually lead them into sexually assaulting children?

If they become illegal isn't that really going against liberty, they are not hurting anyone are they?

Should the dolls be allowed but regulated toughly?

__________________

I would personally discourage any pedophile from using a child sex doll because it is messed up beyond comprehension however I can't say that I stand for Liberty and say child sex dolls should be criminalised when it fact they don't go against the non-aggression principle of libertarianism.

It is a weird issue but I believe the production and distribution of them should be regulated to ensure they are not promoted and not sold to children themselves.

I am willing to be persuaded. If you think they shouldn't be regulated at all try to persuade me, if you think they should be illegal try to persuade me also.

]]>389Wed, 02 Aug 2017 14:37:39 +0000Thoughts on drugs and their legalisation?http://forums.ragreynolds.net/index.php?/topic/72-thoughts-on-drugs-and-their-legalisation/
What do you think about drugs and their legalisation? Should all drugs be legalised? Should only weed be legal? Should none of it be legal? (Obviously I'm not referring to medicine, I'm talking strictly about recreational use).

I say you legalise all drugs, and I say this for a few reasons.

People should be able to do whatever they want with their own bodies, and that should include putting whatever they want into it.

It would eliminate the need for drug dealers, which in turn would put an end to most organised crime and would cause less people to actually try more hardcore drugs. It would also mean that people would be getting exactly what they were paying for, rather than drugs that are possibly laced with other things.

Taxation of legal drugs could do wonders for the economy. Just look at what weed legalisation has done for places such as Colorado.

If there was a system in place where addicts could legally get a fix, it would stop them from mugging helpless people in the streets and breaking into houses.

]]>72Wed, 18 Jan 2017 01:00:32 +0000Euthanasia for the Mentally Illhttp://forums.ragreynolds.net/index.php?/topic/365-euthanasia-for-the-mentally-ill/
I've been browsing Facebook and I came this article by the BBC about euthanasia and that some people in Canada are calling for euthanasia for the mentally ill like in the Netherlands. I'm personally outraged for such thing.

It's one thing to call for euthanasia for the terminally ill, and another to call it on people who want to die, people who can't make an informed decision.

Helping the people to die who are classed as ill because they want to die in the first place.

It's outrageous.

I've had various arguments with some of the sociopaths and depressed teens who are for this and call this the 'humane' thing to do if treatment is not working. Instead of blaming the clinicians for giving up them and calling them 'untreatable'.

'Humane' is doctors being persistent with that person, being there for them, listening to them, caring for them.

These people are ill and vulnerable and the state should be helping them instead of killing them. People should be ashamed for even supporting this. These people can be helped, they need support, their families have given up on them, they have given up, society must not though give up on them, WE MUST HELP THEM. It might take decades to repair the damage but giving up on them and killing them because they are suicidal; that's tyranny, that's not giving a shit.

The people who are behind this want to ease the pressure of a growing mental health crisis by the worse imaginable way possible, murder. These people are vulnerable. If a child asked you to kill him/her, would you, NO because they are child they can't make the right decision, it's the same with the mentally ill. I've been through mental illness, a clouded vulnerable mind can not make a right decision. Can not consent. If the mental illness is that extreme to the point that the person wants to die then that person loses the capacity to make such decision. Should we save the suicidal or let them kill themselves or even worse kill them our selves. If you honestly believe such thing should be in practice then I've lost all hope in humanity.

If this choice was available to me while I was ill, I would have taken it and be dead right now but treatment was chosen for me by force because I lacked the capacity to consent, now that I've recovered I'm glad treatment and LIFE was forced upon me.

We can't put these people down like a dog who doesn't fit in and no one wants it.

Ironically, I'm a libertarian but one thing the state can't do is try to force a person to live if they are of a sound mind (unlikely but possible). If you're of a sound mind, it is not illegal to take your own life, you will not be prosecuted but helped. Now if you're indeed mentally ill and need help, the state not only should lack the power of giving you a way out but give the clinicians the power to keep you safe till you are of a sound mind and can take care of yourself and make those decisions by yourself. Why? Because of the hippocratic oath, that's why!

I believe in the non- aggression principle, talked by many libertarians and to me personally killing the mentally ill, those who don't know right from wrong at that particular time is a violation of that non-aggression principle. Just like a child who can't consent to sex, an acutely mentally ill person doesn't have the capacity to make a choice such as ending their life hence they must be protected till they are of a sound mind.

It's murder because they don't have the capacity to understand, just like a child who can't give consent to sex hence it is rape.

Now if you're of a sound mind nothing stops you from ending it all, you're a coward though if you want the state to do it for you. You have the right to die, what you don't have is a state that has the legislate power to do that for you. No one is taking people's rights away!

]]>365Thu, 20 Jul 2017 04:23:14 +0000Capital Punishment Pollhttp://forums.ragreynolds.net/index.php?/topic/302-capital-punishment-poll/
In light of the Manchester bombing, I have felt great anger against people who try and attack our constitution, our freedom, our British way of life. I feel great anger against those who we don't get to hear. Those who get arrested everyday for terrorism charges. It seems as a lot of these so called terrorists are home grown terrorists planning to betray their country by attacking it's people. They plan to attack Her Majesty's government, Her constitution, Her Army and Her Majesty Herself.

They fail most of the time because our intelligence services are brilliant at what they do. The problem is our justice system has abandoned it's sense of justice. There used to be a time before we joined the European Union that high treason would be considered a crime punishable by death, a crime that would mean that you would be hanged from the neck till death.

Regardless if those so-called terrorists are born here or have immigrated here, if they choose to attack our way of life, they are traitors.

Those who immigrate here take the oath of alliance;

I, X, do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God.

Those are not empty words, they mean a great lot. If they choose from that point on to attack and/or conspire to attack our people, our way of life, Her Majesty's Government, Her Army or Her Majesty Herself; they should face the rope. Hanging and only hanging that's what they deserve. It is treason!

It is my opinion that capital punishment should only be reserved for anyone that has been charged with planning a terrorist attack or someone who committed a terrorist attack. If it is by someone who was either British or an immigrant who has taken the oath of alliance, it should be classified as treason instead and they should face capital punishment as well. If anyone tries to attack Her Majesty's Government, Her Army or Her Majesty Herself, that should be classed as high treason as it clearly is and that should be met with same force as I mentioned above.

I also believe in capital punishment for war crimes during times of war.

Terrorists and Traitors should be hanged from the neck till dead in my opinion. Methods for capital punishment for high treason and war crimes during times of war should be death by shooting squad for practicality reasons.

I don't believe capital punishment should be public unless the government feels the public is angry enough at the atrocity committed by the offender. Then they should be offered the choice to attend at the location of the hanging. Children shouldn't not attend.

Capital punishment should only be put to the table if the person is 100% guilty without a shadow of a doubt. The offender also has to understand fully what his intentions were. If the offender was mentally ill to the point that he didn't grasp what was right from wrong and didn't understand his intentions, he should be be put into a psychiatric hospital indefinitely.

I don't believe capital punishment should be a punishment for plain murder but life prison, because it doesn't compare to terrorism or high treason.

If capital punishment was only legal for the crimes I mentioned above not only it would bring terrorism down in my opinion but we wouldn't be as brutal like the United States who kill anyone who committed plain murder just because a jury decided so.

]]>302Sat, 27 May 2017 02:04:55 +0000Abortions R Ushttp://forums.ragreynolds.net/index.php?/topic/47-abortions-r-us/
What is your stance on abortion? Do you think women should be prohibited from getting abortions, or do you think they should be allowed to get abortions just for fun?

I'm pro-choice so long as it's not too late into the pregnancy, but for the most part I really don't care at all.

In general, I think that guns are bad. I don't think that anyone in the world should own a gun. However, I understand that it isn't that simple. If the government/the police have guns, then the people should also be entitled to have guns. It has to be equal. In my ideal world, neither the government/police or the people would have guns. So I guess I'm somewhere in between the pro-gun control and anti-gun control. Because although I'm against guns in the first place, I think it's highly impractical to prevent people from having them. Gun control works in places such as the UK or Australia, and I believe that this is due to both places being islands with tighter borders than other places. Look at France and all the trouble they've had. They have guns banned, yet they have experienced lots and lots of gun violence including gun violence via terror attacks. I believe this is due to them being surrounded by other countries rather than being an island, and this makes it far harder for them to prevent guns coming into their country. I think for this same reason, gun control would never work out well in the US, because there are too many ways to get guns into the country.

]]>219Sun, 12 Mar 2017 14:01:52 +0000Is it okay to punch a 'Nazi' in the face?http://forums.ragreynolds.net/index.php?/topic/122-is-it-okay-to-punch-a-nazi-in-the-face/
Okay so recently during protests against Donald Trump, Richard Spencer (a man who is one of the top figures associated with the alt-right) was punched in the face by a protester while answering a reporter's questions. Here's a GIF:

Now Shia LaBeouf has been arrested for assaulting a man that people are also claiming was a 'Nazi'.

Now, Richard Spencer is most undoubtedly a piece of shit, but does that mean people should have the right to assault him? Of course not. I'm seeing people all over Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, etc... all screaming about how great it is that this has happened and how it is okay to punch 'Nazis'.

People are posting with the #FreeShia and all this other bullshit.

I'm honestly sickened to my core that people think it is okay to assault people just because they say horrible things. Actual Nazis are undoubtedly horrible people and don't deserve respect, but when you transform a verbal altercation into a physical one, it does not matter how horrible the other person is, you are the shitty person in that scenario.

Now, if it were as simple as just people being okay with punching Nazis, I wouldn't be as concerned as I am now. My biggest concern is coming from the fact that for a while now, the social justice types on the left have been falsely labelling countless people as 'white nationalists'. These people also conflate 'white nationalists' with Nazis. So if it's okay to assault 'Nazis', really what they're moving towards is an idea that it's okay to assault anyone that disagrees with you. I have been called a Nazi in the middle of online debates where I have said nothing offensive. I've seen people all over the internet saying that anyone who defends/supports Donald Trump is a white nationalist. I've had people say over and over again to me that although I may not be a horrible racist piece of shit, the fact that I support Donald Trump means that I am supporting racism and white nationalism, and that makes me just as bad.

What I'm saying is that people for a while now have been labelling those who disagree with them as racists, sexists, and white nationalists. And the new phrase is 'Nazi'.

I am honestly terrified that these people are going to continue assaulting more and more people and eventually people are going to die. And you just know that as soon as someone fights back or whatever, it will spread like wildfire that some white guy beat up a black guy, even though it was the black guy who started the fight with the white guy for being a 'Nazi'.

I don't feel as though I've worded this post very well. I'm kinda stuck here trying to get out what I want to say, but I think you get the point.

>SJWs promote the idea that it's okay to punch Nazis
>SJWs label people that disagree with them as Nazis
>SJWs assault the people they have labelled as Nazis

NOTE: If the so called 'Nazi' was actually a Nazi and was beating up Jews or something, then I'd have no issue with people fighting back. My issue is with people thinking it is okay to assault people who are saying things that they deem disgusting.